Yep, but it was quite a while ago. I just feel like there were parts stretched out because they're trying to stretch the book into 3 movies, each probably going to be close to 3 hours each. I'm hoping it gets better though

Originally Posted by DreDayDetox

Did the 48fps make the movie feel more faster? Like, does it look as terrible as when you have motionflow enabled on your HDTV? That is the worst thing you can turn on to see a movie. It's better for gaming.

Hmm, no it was not as terrible or sometimes as nauseating as the MotionFlow/higher refresh rate enabled. Perhaps, because it was filmed at 48 fps rather than post processing like is the case with those HDTV modes.

Thinner -6.5/10- Unfortunately, I haven't read the book yet but film wasn't too bad.

"When I was 12, I milked my eel into a pot of turtle stew. I flogged the one-eyed snake, I skinned my sausage. I made the bald man cry into the turtle stew, which I believe my sister ate. At least I hope she did."

Tonight I attended an high frame rate (HFR) 3D advance screening. Solid but very familiar. It lacks the urgency, scale, and progression of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Visual effects are some of the best out there but really felt more like a refinement of what was done before. The controversial 48 frames per second format did not bother me as much as I anticipated but I am not in love with it. I will say that it helped make the 3D really crisp, as Peter Jackson has argued. It did make some shots feel "fake" and overall the look reminded me of a BBC movie or TV show. This is one of the few films I will recommend seeing the 3D version of because otherwise you might just be bored honestly if you aren't a hardcore fan. Overall, lacked the fresh impact of the LOTR trilogy yet I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy it.

SCORE: 7.5 out of 10

The higher-ups at 411mania.com asked me to write a full review of The Hobbit, so feel free to check it out here.

The Hobbit 10/10- It's a bit slow for the first half but man after that...pure awesomeness! Excellent movie. Loved the rock giants. I didn't see where the 48 fps was a big deal. Didn't seem unnatural at all. Only a few instances you could really noticed and that was in a scene with running water.

When I got used to the framerate, I can't be sure if I'm okay with it. Something about it feels "off" and I'm not sure if it's because of the newness of it. Entertainment Weekly best describes how I feel about 48 FPS, particularly when the accelerated fluidity made me more aware of unconvincing CGI and unconvincing body acting.

One thing I'm certain of, however, is that 3D is still pointless. The Hobbit incorporated it well, but I still don't like it. It just feels like a glorified cheap thrill that isn't better than 2D to begin with. TDKR in 2D IMAX was much more immersive for me.

The added fps was subtle, but I thought it worked. When I got used to it, I liked it very much and expect it to be pushed into a new standard. The only downside is that 48 fps gives you more awareness to details due to the extra fluidity, causing any unconvincing CGI or body acting to be more obvious. That was the case for me, at least.

3D is still pointless, though. After still being bothered by it in The Hobbit, a movie that actually uses it well, I am convinced that 3D is a glorified cheap thrill and simply not better than 2D.

I couldn't have said it better myself in regards to 3d. I liked it when it first hit the scene but now it just seems like a cash in.

ps3freak: Yeah, man. My eyes are still throbbing from seeing the movie, too.

DrDreDetox: 48 fps gives you more attention to EVERYTHING. I imagine this is because the extra fluidity heightens your senses. As a result, CGI in a live action setting does not look as convincing in many cases and any body acting that isn't totally convincing becomes more noticible (for instance, a large scale battle that normally looks serviceable throughout might cause you to catch a few spots where someone's sword thrust appeared half-baked somehow if you were to watch it again in 48 FPS). 48 fps looks good when it isn't doing these things, though, but I dunno if it's worth it.

When I got used to the framerate, I can't be sure if I'm okay with it. Something about it feels "off" and I'm not sure if it's because of the newness of it. Entertainment Weekly best describes how I feel about 48 FPS, particularly when the accelerated fluidity made me more aware of unconvincing CGI and unconvincing body acting.

I was thinking that just maybe, Jackson is starting to go the way of Cameron. I understand some of the reasons for 48fps, but they're generally not for the story. Strictly for resolving technical aspects.

I have about a week yet before I'll be testing it out. I'll see how it looks then.